Saang talata sa biblia nakasulat na ang salita ng Dios binubuo ng 66 na libro?

[tomenjeri]

papano po kung nagkamali po ang nagkanon ng Biblya katulad po ng pagkakamali po ng Papa sa Limbo?

[ElCid]

why is it necessary for me to admit that sola scriptura is self refuting on the basis of canonization? when sola scriptura is not (directly) related to the composition of books.

Again you miserably fail in understanding the implication of your own teachings i.e. Sola Scriptura. SS assumes that the bible is the INERRANT WORD OF GOD - the only, final, and authoritative source of christian doctrine and morals. So it is imperative that you DERIVE THE CANON ITSELF FROM SCRIPTURE. Why? Since SS is built on the assumption that only SCRIPTURE can be trusted - so why are you now trying to evade the disastrous implication of your own teachings? How can you now be sure that what you hold is the complete word of God without assurance from scripture which is the only inerrant and final source for christian doctrine for you?

indeed, SS takes the Bible as the ONLY inspired, final, and highest authority, what you are missing is that whether the Bible is 66, or 73 books, SS can still take effect, because SS does not say the Bible is 66 books explicitly. SS can only contribute as far as to the way and method of arriving at a composition, and that is like I said, should not be contradicting both in facts and in purpose. So saying that non-catholics do not know "the way" to identify which book are they, is a blatant lie.

Again dess you fail to grasp the implication of your own teaching. If you agree that SS takes the bible as the only, inspired, final and highest authority - why are you now substituting other authorities in determining the canon of scripture? How can now the bible be the only, final and highest authority on christian doctrine and morals when another authority has another say? Can't you see the GLARING CONTRADICTION YOURSELF?

again, How can you say that SS is self refuting on the number of books (66), when its purpose is not to dictate a number of books? I just realized that you are, from the very start, hitting a strawman

Again you are deluding yourself and others. You have agreed that the BIBLE IS THE ONLY, FINAL AND HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE - why do you now consult other authorities regarding the teaching and doctrine of what and how many books compose the canon of scriptures? How would you now know for sure if you have the complete books or you have less or if your list is correct in the first place? On whose authority will you now rely on to check if your canon is correct if you don't use scripture?

Luther did that, he even tried to remove (or have removed) some books like Revelation, but on basis of SS, christians preserved those books in the canon.

You see now how arbitrary and whimsical you people can be about the scriptures? If any of you can whimsically remove any number of books in scripture - how do you now know that you have the correct books in your bible?

And you aren't making any sense again Dess and you are making ambiguous statements - who are the christians here you are referring to who preserved the books of the canon?

if Genesis was the only book revealed to us by God, then it is the only sufficient book, but then again, the Lord revealed His economy in 66 books. does the DCs reveal, atleast a pinch, of God's economy?

Lols. How would you know that for certain when it is not in scripture in the first place? And how did the Lord reveal the 66 books - explain it to me. So are you telling me that God's revelation isn't confined in scripture?

and that is why, we are stucked with 66.
the Word of God is sufficient and final.

if we discover a 67th book and have been attested, cross checked both with the Spirit and the other books.

the we may possibly have a 67 books of the Bible, which is God's Word, and which is Final and sufficient.

you see, prots follow a strict 66 books canon because they believe that the 66 books are God's Word, and they are well sufficient and Final
RCathoics follow a strict 73 books, because their priests told them. And I am assuming that they do not believe that God's Word is final and sufficient, the pope's word should also be taken equally to God's Word.

Yeah sure cross check the canon with the spirit. You have direct contact with the HS? lols. Here you say Protestants BELIEVE the 66 book as God's word - so you have no basis in scripture. YOU JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE IT WITHOUT ANY BASIS FROM YOUR FINAL, ONLY AND HIGHEST AUTHORITY. So who is blind now whimsical and arbitrary when you yourself say that any one of you can remove and add from the books of scripture?

like I said, even in our past conversation in this same thread. SS does not say which books should be included, but it does tell us HOW the to identfiy which books are inspired or not.

now don't ask me how the book/books where the doctrine on HOW to identify a which books, were chosen. it's like asking who created God, or where did God came from?

I'm sorry to say that what you say here again is nonsensical. You agree that SS teaches that the bible is the only, final and highest authority - now you are telling me that there teachings which aren't included in scripture according to SS?

We have Jesus Christ mentioning the Law, the prophets, and the psalms, and He considered them as scripture.
so we take into consideration the Jewish Canon, and we start from there to find out which NT is a reality of the OT.

oh wait, I believe the DCs aren't canon to the Jewish Scripture, if I am not mistaken...

There is no Jewish canon Ms. Dess and this is an admission that you CONSULT OTHER AUTHORITIES on matters of faith and doctrine which is outside of scripture. How can you even dare preach when you contradict yourself?

the same HS who guided the early church fathers.

So do you now admit that the ECF's were guided by the Holy Spirit? How come you don't observe the same canon of scripture that was passed down by the ECF's?

Soriano? i abhor that person's testimony and method of preaching.

by the church/christians, guided by the Spirit's authority.

Another ambiguous answer.

I have explained already that the "one thing" and "their own teaching" does not in anyway go against each other.
which part don't you get?

I am getting you pretty well Ms. Dess. The problem is you keep on making up explanations which you yourself contradict. And ironically - you aren't using scripture to defend your position.

again SS is does NOT say 66 books
the christians using SS arrived at 66 books.

Who are these christians? And do you believe in the same way they do?

point/quote it.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

and for sufficiency:

2 Tim 3:16,17
All scripture [is] given by
inspiration of God, and [is]
profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may
be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.

http://www.equip.org/articles/a-defe...ola-scriptura/

How can something be sufficient if you can't identify it in the first place reliably using it's own methods and teachings?

well your identifed premises are unreliable if not wrong. That is why it is self refuting.
you have shot an arrow, and made circles around where it landed.

I have shown that you contradict yourself since you admit, against the teachings of SS that there are teachings outside of scripture which is equally valid especially as regards the canon.

nope, the prblem is that you have identified a bunch of traditions which the scripture could not identify

lols.

first, your description of SS is not what I practice, because you have re-engineered SS doctrine to compliment your arguments

You have already agreed to it now you say that I have re-engineered it lols. Ok can you now show us the OFFICIAL definition of SS which you say you subscribe to so you could demonstrate to us how you invent doctrines as you go along? lolz.

second, the basic principle of SS is what I adhere to, since it is scriptural.

lastly, I follow the Bible, I don't need tradition. so please stop putting words in my mouth.

You follow what you do not know. You say that you do not need tradition but you rely on Jewish/Catholic tradition outside of scripture to determine what composes scripture. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

we are talking about traditions, are we not?

Yeah but you do follow the tradition of the jews and catholics as regards the O.T. and N.T. canon respectively precisely because the canon aren't in scripture. That is why you are a hypocrite for saying that you say you don't need tradition when in fact you do.

[SmartDessa]

So it is imperative that you DERIVE THE CANON ITSELF FROM SCRIPTURE.

which is still true in SS, although you will not see a list of books of 66 in any of the passage, the scripture itself have conveyed to us how to determine which books is inspired or not.

Again dess you fail to grasp the implication of your own teaching. If you agree that SS takes the bible as the only, inspired, final and highest authority - why are you now substituting other authorities in determining the canon of scripture? How can now the bible be the only, final and highest authority on christian doctrine and morals when another authority has another say? Can't you see the GLARING CONTRADICTION YOURSELF?

Again you are deluding yourself and others. You have agreed that the BIBLE IS THE ONLY, FINAL AND HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE - why do you now consult other authorities regarding the teaching and doctrine of what and how many books compose the canon of scriptures? How would you now know for sure if you have the complete books or you have less or if your list is correct in the first place? On whose authority will you now rely on to check if your canon is correct if you don't use scripture?

what "another authority" are you talking about?

wow, this is only putting words into my mouth, this actually choking me with words into my mouth.
don't try to hypnotize me by repeating your argument when it is still questionable.

You see now how arbitrary and whimsical you people can be about the scriptures? If any of you can whimsically remove any number of books in scripture - how do you now know that you have the correct books in your bible?

whimsical? so turning to the Spirit and asking for His wisdom, is whimsical?
on the contrary, your method is rather whimsical, you just follow your pope on whatever dirt he tells you to follow

And you aren't making any sense again Dess and you are making ambiguous statements - who are the christians here you are referring to who preserved the books of the canon?

christians who followed the principle of SS. maybe they were Roman Catholics, or protestants.
but for sure they are christians.

[quote]
Lols. How would you know that for certain when it is not in scripture in the first place? And how did the Lord reveal the 66 books - explain it to me. So are you telling me that God's revelation isn't confined in scripture?
[quote]

God revealed the 66 books in such a way that the OT was realized in the NT, that the OT speaks of Christ, and the NT gave us Christ, that everything confined in these books are not contradictory, and has the same purpose and message.
And at this point in time, there are no other scripture, including the DC, that passess such requirement.

do you think that the DCs were excluded because we said so, or because a separate authority said so, or just because it's Roman Catholic and we are not? There was a careful study and consideration with much help from the Lord to determine its composition.

how can you say that the Torah is God breathed because your pope said so?
we can only say that a book is inspired because God says so.

since both of us we believe that Christ is God, and Christ identified the OT scriptures, we can conveniently say that the OT used by the Jews were also used to deduct other scriptures besides the 27 NT books. and the DCs of course.

Yeah sure cross check the canon with the spirit. You have direct contact with the HS? lols. Here you say Protestants BELIEVE the 66 book as God's word - so you have no basis in scripture. YOU JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE IT WITHOUT ANY BASIS FROM YOUR FINAL, ONLY AND HIGHEST AUTHORITY. So who is blind now whimsical and arbitrary when you yourself say that any one of you can remove and add from the books of scripture?

again, there is basis, although not explicitly revealed.

I'm sorry to say that what you say here again is nonsensical. You agree that SS teaches that the bible is the only, final and highest authority - now you are telling me that there teachings which aren't included in scripture according to SS?

I did not say that.

what I said is that the HOW on identifying which books are inspired, is present in the FINAL, INERRANT, HIGHEST AUTHORITY, of the Bible.

so what "other" teaching not in the Bible are you talking about?

There is no Jewish canon Ms. Dess and this is an admission that you CONSULT OTHER AUTHORITIES on matters of faith and doctrine which is outside of scripture. How can you even dare preach when you contradict yourself?

which authorities? the only authority we are consulting is the Jewish OT, which is the Word of God, inspired by God, given to the people of God.
and Jesus Christ who is a Jew and who identied Jewish OT as scripture.

are you saying that the Word of God, being the Highest authority, is higher that the Lord?
the Lord Jesus is THE Word.

So do you now admit that the ECF's were guided by the Holy Spirit? How come you don't observe the same canon of scripture that was passed down by the ECF's?

well the early church fathers were also the ones who fell into apostasy.

you see, deputy authority given by God is not permanent, we see it in Adam who lost this authority when he ate of the fruit of the TOKOGAE
Noah who was the only living father after the flood, lost the deputy authority when he lost his covering. Solomon was the wisest man on earth, and because of idolatry, he caused Israel divided.

we can say that the ECF at some point got it right, and at some point fell because they lost the covering of Christ, this is when the church was Romanized, and further became schismatic with the east.

Another ambiguous answer.

are you saying that the RC Canon was formed without the consent of the Spirit?

I am getting you pretty well Ms. Dess. The problem is you keep on making up explanations which you yourself contradict. And ironically - you aren't using scripture to defend your position.

I believe I have given the passages you require. so why should you lie?

Who are these christians? And do you believe in the same way they do?

for a person who believes in a one true church, you still consider the Body divided?
the christians are simply those who believed in the Lord as their personal Savior
the church are these christians called by God, to be His Body and His bride.

if you are that person, then you are a christian. regardless of affiliation.

the christians, both the RC, prots agree with the 66 books, so there, you have the christians who chose the 66 books.
now for those who chose the extra 7 books, well they are also christians, but they were not one with the spirit when they chose them.

How can something be sufficient if you can't identify it in the first place reliably using it's own methods and teachings?

so the Word of God is not sufficient?
isn't the Lord Jesus the Word?

so the Lord is not sufficient?

I already did show you the method implied in the scriptures, please backread.

I have shown that you contradict yourself since you admit, against the teachings of SS that there are teachings outside of scripture which is equally valid especially as regards the canon.

think what you want to think

but I think you are telling us that there are RC teachings that are COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO SCRIPTURES, and UNINSPIRED by the Spirit

please acknowledge

You have already agreed to it now you say that I have re-engineered it lols. Ok can you now show us the OFFICIAL definition of SS which you say you subscribe to so you could demonstrate to us how you invent doctrines as you go along? lolz.

well what can I say, you are good at lying, you made me agree first by making me answer questions that are rigged, and you evade and ignore my explanations why I agreed.

and excuse me, but I have already told you that I follow the principle of SS, but not SS in its totality. Not because it is
and for the Official definition of SS, you don't have to ask me about that, you can just google it.

in fact, you are the one who doesn't understand SS, you know its definition, yet you have mistaken it to contain the list of books considered canon. when it is clear that SS's purpose is not to name you up front which are these books.

You follow what you do not know. You say that you do not need tradition but you rely on Jewish/Catholic tradition outside of scripture to determine what composes scripture. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

I did not say that I rely on the "tradition" of Jews or Romans.
I have already told you that I rely on the same Spirit the ECF relied on when they formed the 27 books of the NT, and the referencing of the Lord Jesus and his followers in the NT of the OT

you are the hypocrite, you follow the same 66 books which teaches that the scriptures are sufficient, and yet you neede to insert tradition to your faith. you chose books which you do not follow? that's hypocrisy

Yeah but you do follow the tradition of the jews and catholics as regards the O.T. and N.T. canon respectively precisely because the canon aren't in scripture. That is why you are a hypocrite for saying that you say you don't need tradition when in fact you do.

I assume you have traditions COMPLETELY unrelated to scripture. yes?

I follow consider the OT canon, because the Lord says so, and His followers refer to them.
I follow the NT canon of 27 books because not because they are the reality of the OT, and have shown relevance to God's Economy

I do not follow both canons because they are followed traditionally
please don't let me repeat the same answers by asking repeatedly the same questions.


now, be gentleman enough to answer my questions also.
1,) does the DCs reveal, atleast a pinch, of God's economy?
2.) does the authority given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, includes invention of teachings and doctrines exclusive from the scriptures and the Lord's teachings? emphasis on the "authority given by Christ"
3.) do you have traditions COMPLETELY unrelated to scripture? which is the Word of God, who is Christ Himself. in short, traditions UNRELATED to Christ
4.) do you not completely obey and believe scripture, particularly in 2 Tim when it says the Word of God is sufficient enough for good works.

[ElCid]

^It really amazes me how you can weave words without answering anything at all lols. But I would give you an A for your effort in trying to obfuscate the issue. However, the question is simple and let me break it down for you:

Where in scripture and in what verse is it written that the bible is composed of 66 books?


Firstly, why is it important to answer that question? Since before you can practice SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE PRINCIPLE you must first IDENTIFY what composes THE BIBLE in the first place - NO BIBLE - NO SOLA SCRIPTURA. Simple di ba?

Secondly, why is it important for you to find it in scripture? Because you hold on to the teaching of Sola Scriptura which simply states that the bible is the ONLY, FINAL, SUFFICIENT AND HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. So therefore if you can't find that cornerstone teaching in scripture then Sola Scriptura refutes itself since the bible is demonstrably not SUFFICIENT, NOT THE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL AND NOT THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Simple di ba?

Thirdly, if only the bible is the THEOPNEUSTOS or the GOD BREATHE inspired word of God and therefore is the only reliable and innerant source of information for you as regards the christian faith then it is imperative to derive the canon of scripture from scripture itself. So if such is not the case then what makes you so sure that what you hold right now - the 66 book bible (that was cannibalized by luther) is the complete word of God that leads to salvation? Simple di ba?

The pope has nothing to do with this issue and all other red herrings you'd like to throw into this thread. You can rant and rave about everything else but these are the issues - stick to them.

[SmartDessa]

answer my questions please, Mr. ElCid.

[ElCid]

answer my questions please, Mr. ElCid.

I don't have to since they are all out of topic. So in order to get us back on track you answer this simple points instead:

^It really amazes me how you can weave words without answering anything at all lols. But I would give you an A for your effort in trying to obfuscate the issue. However, the question is simple and let me break it down for you:

Where in scripture and in what verse is it written that the bible is composed of 66 books?

Firstly, why is it important to answer that question? Since before you can practice SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE PRINCIPLE you must first IDENTIFY what composes THE BIBLE in the first place - NO BIBLE - NO SOLA SCRIPTURA. Simple di ba?

Secondly, why is it important for you to find it in scripture? Because you hold on to the teaching of Sola Scriptura which simply states that the bible is the ONLY, FINAL, SUFFICIENT AND HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. So therefore if you can't find that cornerstone teaching in scripture then Sola Scriptura refutes itself since the bible is demonstrably not SUFFICIENT, NOT THE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL AND NOT THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Simple di ba?

Thirdly, if only the bible is the THEOPNEUSTOS or the GOD BREATHE inspired word of God and therefore is the only reliable and innerant source of information for you as regards the christian faith then it is imperative to derive the canon of scripture from scripture itself. So if such is not the case then what makes you so sure that what you hold right now - the 66 book bible (that was cannibalized by luther) is the complete word of God that leads to salvation? Simple di ba?

The pope has nothing to do with this issue and all other red herrings you'd like to throw into this thread. You can rant and rave about everything else but these are the issues - stick to them.

[SmartDessa]

^you claim that they are out of topic, defend your position

[ElCid]

^you claim that they are out of topic, defend your position

You are using a Red Herring fallacy. Allow me to illustrate:

now, be gentleman enough to answer my questions also.
1,) does the DCs reveal, atleast a pinch, of God's economy?


The DC has nothing to do with you establishing the biblical foundation of your canon of scripture.

2.) does the authority given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, includes invention of teachings and doctrines exclusive from the scriptures and the Lord's teachings? emphasis on the "authority given by Christ"

We aren't talking about invention of teachings here not unless of course if you're referring to Sola Scriptura that was invented by Luther and his ilk 1,500 after Christ.

3.) do you have traditions COMPLETELY unrelated to scripture? which is the Word of God, who is Christ Himself. in short, traditions UNRELATED to Christ

We aren't talking about catholic traditions here.

4.) do you not completely obey and believe scripture, particularly in 2 Tim when it says the Word of God is sufficient enough for good works.

We aren't talking about good works either.

So you see Ms. Dess you don't know what you are talking about. You keep on punching in the air without hitting anything. Stop making yourself look ridiculous.

Now be the lady that you are and answer these points:

Firstly, why is it important to answer that question? Since before you can practice SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE PRINCIPLE you must first IDENTIFY what composes THE BIBLE in the first place - NO BIBLE - NO SOLA SCRIPTURA. Simple di ba?

Secondly, why is it important for you to find it in scripture? Because you hold on to the teaching of Sola Scriptura which simply states that the bible is the ONLY, FINAL, SUFFICIENT AND HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. So therefore if you can't find that cornerstone teaching in scripture then Sola Scriptura refutes itself since the bible is demonstrably not SUFFICIENT, NOT THE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL AND NOT THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Simple di ba?

Thirdly, if only the bible is the THEOPNEUSTOS or the GOD BREATHE inspired word of God and therefore is the only reliable and innerant source of information for you as regards the christian faith then it is imperative to derive the canon of scripture from scripture itself. So if such is not the case then what makes you so sure that what you hold right now - the 66 book bible (that was cannibalized by luther) is the complete word of God that leads to salvation? Simple di ba?

[SmartDessa]

You are using a Red Herring fallacy. Allow me to illustrate:

now, be gentleman enough to answer my questions also.
1,) does the DCs reveal, atleast a pinch, of God's economy?


The DC has nothing to do with you establishing the biblical foundation of your canon of scripture.

you did not answer my question.

answer yes or no, and then explain why. thank you

2.) does the authority given by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, includes invention of teachings and doctrines exclusive from the scriptures and the Lord's teachings? emphasis on the "authority given by Christ"

We aren't talking about invention of teachings here not unless of course if you're referring to Sola Scriptura that was invented by Luther and his ilk 1,500 after Christ.

again you are not answering the question.
you calim that the Roman Catholic clergy was given authority by Christ, can this authority be used to produce doctrine, such as the canon doctrine that is outside the scope of the scriptures, and known teachings of the Lord Jesus?

in short, did the Lord Jesus has anything to do with canon doctrine

3.) do you have traditions COMPLETELY unrelated to scripture? which is the Word of God, who is Christ Himself. in short, traditions UNRELATED to Christ

We aren't talking about catholic traditions here.

but you insisted that protestants do not admit that they got their canon based on tradition of both Jews and Roman catholics.

so, can you confirm that there are traditions unrelated whatsover to scripture, even to the canon of 73 books.

and as a follow up question, do you agree that the Lord Jesus, is the Word of God, which is the scripture in the flesh as revealed in John 1

4.) do you not completely obey and believe scripture, particularly in 2 Tim when it says the Word of God is sufficient enough for good works.

We aren't talking about good works either.

you are refuting SS being the sole authority of anything pertaining to faith and morals
faith issues in good works, of which are morally good.

try again and answer the same question

So you see Ms. Dess you don't know what you are talking about. You keep on punching in the air without hitting anything. Stop making yourself look ridiculous.

Now be the lady that you are and answer these points:

Firstly, why is it important to answer that question? Since before you can practice SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE PRINCIPLE you must first IDENTIFY what composes THE BIBLE in the first place - NO BIBLE - NO SOLA SCRIPTURA. Simple di ba?

Secondly, why is it important for you to find it in scripture? Because you hold on to the teaching of Sola Scriptura which simply states that the bible is the ONLY, FINAL, SUFFICIENT AND HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. So therefore if you can't find that cornerstone teaching in scripture then Sola Scriptura refutes itself since the bible is demonstrably not SUFFICIENT, NOT THE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL AND NOT THE HIGHEST authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Simple di ba?

Thirdly, if only the bible is the THEOPNEUSTOS or the GOD BREATHE inspired word of God and therefore is the only reliable and innerant source of information for you as regards the christian faith then it is imperative to derive the canon of scripture from scripture itself. So if such is not the case then what makes you so sure that what you hold right now - the 66 book bible (that was cannibalized by luther) is the complete word of God that leads to salvation? Simple di ba?

[/quote]

I will, again, address your arguments, but you must know that your answers (which are not really answers) are insufficient and evasive. S, again, may I request you to try and answer them again, but now in the most honest and honorable way.

[Ferdinand]

I-formal debate ninyo kaya iyan.

[ElCid]

I-formal debate ninyo kaya iyan.

Di naman lalaban si Dess. Ano dess? Game?

[SmartDessa]

^sorry bro. but i don't like debates. I never win debates because I don't smooch the audience.

[ElCid]

Para kay Dimasisiil daw. :P

[ElCid]

Masama daw ang tradition ng tao lalo na tradition catolica. Fine. Sa biblia lamang dapat umasa at ang biblia lamang ang TANGI, SUPREME AT FINAL AUTHORITY - hooookey :P.

Sige paki labas kung saang talata mababasa na ang Salita ng Dios 66 books tulad ng tinitindigan ng mga ebanghelico protestante. Huag maging hipocrito - gamitin ang aral at gamitin ang biblia sa pagsagot tulad ng inyong paniniwala at paninidigan.